> What would be different about these people if their faces were visible?
I mean, if you agree there's no difference, then we should prefer transparency? You're going to have to make the case for why they should cover their face, since the default for law enforcement for the last 200+ years has been to show their face.
> Answers this question from 9 year ago, so it predates (well probably when you were born)
In case you're wondering why you're getting downvoted and flagged, it's probably to do with the fact that you're throwing around insults like this rather than just answering people's questions.
Accidents happening does not equate to being extremely untrained. Obviously, also, there will be variance in the amount of training across departments/jurisdictions. On average, though, they certainly are highly trained.
lol, I missed the part where she is advocating for killing people in the streets, recruiting militias with no training to be officers, ignoring the fourth amendment and busting into homes, kidnapping people without due process, kidnapping people who did everything legally and are about to take their citizenship oaths...
Medical advice from videos is frequently of the "unhelpful" variety where people recommend home cures that work for some things for absolutely everything.
Also people are really partial to "one quick trick" type solutions without any evidence (or with low barrier to entry) in order to avoid a more difficult procedure that is more proven, but nasty or risky in some way.
For example, if you had cancer would you rather take:
"Ivermectin" which many people say anecdotally cured their cancer, and is generally proven to be harmless to most people (side-effects are minimal)
OR
"Chemotherapy" Which everyone who has taken agrees is nasty, is medically proven to fix Cancer in most cases, but also causes lots of bad side-effects because it's trying to kill your cancer faster than the rest of you.
One of these things actually cures cancer, but who wouldn't be interested in an alternative "miracle cure" that medical journals will tell you does "nothing to solve your problem", but plenty of snake oil salesman on the internet will tell you is a "miracle cure".
It's wild to me that the first Trump Administration didn't teach this lesson. The
"Just Trust me Bro" Foreign policy that has existed clearly only works if the person in power is trustworthy, and you have to carefully investigate any policy that is enforced by "trust". One of the most disappointing failures of the Biden Administration was that they didn't realize this.
The greatest failure of every other country was to get lulled into a false sense of security when the US Gov't shifted back to an at-all trustworthy foreign policy.
At this point I am praying that one of the things pushing back on this administration will be American Companies that have gotten rich on the back of "American Globalism", learning just how much it hurts when the US doesn't do its responsibility to remain Allies with it's nominal Allies.
And the EU, Canada, and anyone else who the current US administration is slighting, should absolutely be moving cash hard and fast away from the American Economy, if they want change in US policy. TACO, is about economic policy, and it's hard to imagine this administration continuing it's more unpopular global (and even local policies), if it's discovering it's not actually backed by US Mega-Corps.
There is no unringing this bell. Maybe a sane administration would slow the migration, but the damage is done. America is a capricious partner who can flip the table at any moment.
The reason there is no unringing this bell is not just that we have a capricious, vainglorious president, it's that all of checks and balances that are supposed to restrain the executive have proven worthless so far. Republicans in Congress have completely declared their impotence, having fully relinquished their duties that the Constitution specifically delegates to the legislative branch, like tariff power, war powers, etc.
Absolutely not. History has shown again and again that human memory is short and greed is unbounded. If there isn't an active fire burning under people's asses they'll choose the $0.01 cheaper option even if it ends up being much worse for them in the long run.
That, plus massive influence campaigns from Russia, China, and US oligarchs like Musk and Thiel, are how we came to be living through the current general disaster.
Exactly. Trump is just the messenger. The underlying problem, festering for decades, is that a large enough fraction of the US population thought that Trump was even remotely qualified to lead a country to begin with.
The fact that we didn’t immediately remove him after the Greenland letter just demonstrated to our allies that that same fraction of people also don’t value our relationship with Europe.
The CCP looks thoughtful and stable by comparison. It’s too bad that the result of this will be to force more people to align with them, because they’re just as self-serving as Trump, they just have the good sense and temperament to hide their true intentions.
A terrible potential is that US products may find themselves unable to get footing internationally, due to broken trust and increased competition, so instead they'll try to rely on every-expanding protectionism and corruption to stay dominant in the US market.
Just as we've seen in the car industry we'll wind up less innovative, less productive, and less economical.
European pension funds are also slowly getting rid of US bonds. They don't talk about it because they don't want to attract the ire of Trump and they don't want to create panic in the markets as long as they are still invested. But e.g. the Dutch fund ABP sold 1/3rd of their US bonds in 6 months (10 out of 30 billion in US bonds that they have). They reinvested the money in Dutch and German bonds.
The wheels for the great decoupling have been set though. The companies (which are also persons apparently thanks to the perversions of American law) have made their bed and will have to sleep in it themselves.
Of course, there are huge unrealized opportunities to be had in economic powerhouses such as Belarus, Argentina, Russia, and whichever other member exists in the Board of Peace.
> We already know many useful things to do; there are already 10,000 startups (9789 out of YC alone, 4423 of which are coding-related) doing various ostensibly useful things. And there a ton more use-cases discussed in the comments here and elsewhere. But because of the headline the discussion is missing the much more important point!
There has to be gold in the West! Look at all of the prospectors moving there to get rich on gold! You have not demonstrated that there are 10k uses of AI, you've only demonstrated that there are 10k "businesses" interested in making money off of AI. Just like there were 10k+ crypto-currencies... Just like there were 10k+ "uber but for..." apps. Where are these failed gold-rush attempts now?
Investors are currently rewarding the words "AI", so (to extend the analogy) when the gold moved, the gold rushers moved to where they thought the gold would be.
Also your emphasis doesn't change the reading of the sentence.
Cryptocurrency startups were just ways to bring "novel" trading strategies into the world of unregulated finance. The only "innovation" there was freedom from regulation and accountability, which turned out just as you'd expect. (Also there are still a surprising number of crypto companies plugging away out there.)
"Uber but for ..." apps were either just bad ideas, or ended up serving niche markets or reincarnating as features in Uber, DoorDash and the like. The only innovation there was new facets of the gig economy, which is still expanding BTW.
Now if you look at the AI gold rush, the differences are stark:
1. A lot of AI startups are already making a lot of money and growing at a record pace. Some of the numbers out there are bonkers.
2. The domains they are targeting are all over, including accounting, education, energy, games, healthcare, sales, pharma, drug discovery, agriculture, legal, customer support, semiconductor design, travel, retail... you name it.
3. The demand is so high, AI hyperscalers have TRIPLE-DIGIT BILLIONS EACH in backlog, i.e. commited revenue they could not realize because of severe capacity crunch.
4. Literally all the world's major governments, which typically take ages to catch up to technological change, are scrambling to get in on the AI wave.
I'm not sure about "profitable" because these are very young (2 - 3 years old) private companies, but there have been a few reports showing their growth indicating very strong PMF i.e. utility:
The revenue growth -- assuming these investors are not all colluding to fudge these numbers on a grand scale -- is way higher than what most have seen before.
Not everyone is hitting PMF of course, but apparently the success rate is also way higher than the past. Ignore the valuations and funding numbers, they are definitely inflated due to the hype.
> "I'm not sure about "profitable" because these are very young (2 - 3 years old) private companies"
In any other industry, this is the death knell for your company. It's only in tech where the investors drop so much money on early investments, that companies can get away with losing money for "2-3 years".
>The revenue growth -- assuming these investors are not all colluding to fudge these numbers on a grand scale -- is way higher than what most have seen before.
As a matter of strict numbers? The revenue growth could be higher just because of inflation.
You really seem to be doing a Gish Gallup here of links, which don't really prove any of your points. If there are specific metrics you can point to in these links that prove your point, then please call that out, but every one of these that I have clicked on has felt like a nothing burger.
> Menlovc link: is just talking about investment in AI, which proves my point
> FT: Paywall
> Stripe: You've got correlation, but not causation. An alternative thing you're proving could be that more investment in the space makes it easier to bring a product to market and earn revenue (How does this compare to SaaS Startups 5-10 years ago)
> Medium Link: is more of "proving my original point"
> CNBC: It's not clear what the metric is here that's making your case
> a16z: It looks to me like, this is actually proving the point that every one of these is considering "investments" as "revenue" which is wild.
Why bring up any other industry when we all know this is the VC playbook for tech companies, and has been working for them for decades? Reminder that Amazon, Uber, DoorDash etc were burning VC cash for upto a ~decade before becoming the giants they are now.
> As a matter of strict numbers? The revenue growth could be higher just because of inflation.
I have no idea how inflation, at < 3%, would matter in charts that show startups going from 0 to million+ in revenue in months to < a year.
> You really seem to be doing a Gish Gallup here of links, which don't really prove any of your points.
Yes, they do actually. I'm not sure why you think those links are talking about investments when they very clearly are about revenue. Open any of them up and cmd-F "revenue". Here's basically the gist of these links:
Investors: "Our startups are growing revenue at record pace" (10% growth week over week (!!) for YC startups as per the CNBC link)
MenloVC: "Enterprise decision makers tell us they're spending on AI at record pace" (E.g. "companies spent $37 billion on generative AI in 2025,3 up from $11.5 billion in 2024, a 3.2x year-over-year increase.")
Stripe: "Our AI startup customers are hitting revenue milestones at record pace."
It's not a "Gish Gallup" if it provides multiple, valid, different data-backed perspectives from different players in the ecosystem that all support the underlying thesis, which is that these AI startups are growing revenue at a unprecedented rates.
> why bring up any other industry when this is the vc playbook
Because my point is how messed up the VC incentive structure for tech is. This is proved by comparing it to every other industry.
> Yes, they do actually. I'm not sure why you think those links are talking about investments when they very clearly are about revenue.
They are using the word "revenue", but can you be certain that the word means "revenue from product sales"? Or does it just mean "revenue from investment".
A couple of the articles specifically mentioned the series A rounds as part of "revenue generation". And my whole point was that investors celebrating how much faster they're investing in AI startups is a classic "begging the question" type fallacy. They are measuring themselves on how much money they are investing in startups, and then saying that is proof that the startups are valuable.
True, the tech VC incentive structure is weird from a typical perspective -- it is very hit-driven... throw money at a thousand startups burning cash to capture a market, and hope one of them becomes a unicorn. However, it has been working very well for them, so at this point nobody questions it.
> They are using the word "revenue", but can you be certain that the word means "revenue from product sales"? Or does it just mean "revenue from investment".
Investment and revenue are accounted for very differently, and if there's any mingling between them that would be highly problematic, probably fraudulent. For instance, there are tax implications, investments are not taxed but income from revenue can be. There can be all kinds of shenanigans that happen with finances in startups for sure, but those are typically unethical and illegal.
In this case they all are talking about revenue. Some articles do mention that funding rounds are also being affected because these companies have been hitting revenue milestones so much faster yet with much fewer people, but that is a separate aspect from the revenue.
I mean, but they're not feeding into the US's power. So they're like, buying into a depreciating asset. This actively signals the US is losing power to China given that it's _formerly top ally_ is making trading partnerships with one of it's nominal "enemies". Anyone who can think more than a month out, can see this will result in the US losing power in the long run.
> So they're like, buying into a depreciating asset
Part of the issue is that the average age of the House is ~55 and for the senate it's above 60. So they have a lot less incentive to care about that, or about climate change.
I wonder how much this makes them resistant to understanding global change. Even in my own short lifetime, China went from a place of villages and cheap factories for low end products to the plausibly dominant center of technology and manufacturing.
Those in congress may still imagine a world where China’s strength is no more than an illusion.
Reminds me of Russia post-Soviet collapse when all of the SSRs rushed to form their own blocs or align with the West, while the Russians thought they would continue to align with their former overlords in Moscow.
USA will definitely turn into the new Russia if it continues to go on this path. It has already exhausted most of its cultural and moral capital, and its tech sector is already under threat in its major allies. It will continue to stay relevant for maybe a generation or two but it will turn largely irrelevant by the turn of the century, just like the British Empire or Russia today. Assuming, of course, that it doesn't correct course.
Bruh, what? Why in the world is Obama relevant? Why aren't you also condemning Harry S. Truman, while you're at it?
That's a wild non sequitur in the the middle of your false equivalency. If you can't see the problems right in front of your eyes, and are still complaining about Obama, then you're lost.
I'm pretty sure this got posted before (maybe for apple, or slightly different headline), and flagged. I can't imagine why this would get flagged, but I think there's a really solid question here. It feels pretty fair to enforce the rules to ensure that this behavior is not allowed on platforms.
Are people still able to do the things this article says you can do with Grok? I know that was the headline several days ago. I haven't really followed this story too closely to know.
I think whether or not you can still actively do this, there should likely be a consequence for the fact that you could ever do this. And pulling from the store for a proportional amount of time seems like a fair way to enforce that.
I don't think this explains why you would pull the article. The fact that it was ever correct is sufficient even if it's not currently point in time correct.
reply